Intelligent Design is not creationism

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from stu:

.,... then its elephants all the way down, which is only what ID can ever be.

Actually it's turtles all the way down. This is an excerpt from Hawking's "Brief History of Time,"

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."
The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

ID is right up there with the turtle theory.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

From his pulpit, from the mouth of babes and sucklings, stuey gives his opinion on ID...

<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=1369325>

We are all so blessed to have stuey tell us what to think and believe...

Out of the mouth of babes and suckings...

Quote from stu:

No, ID/Creationism is just useless. It's not science, it's poor philosophy and religion is arguably a better art form.

As ID/Creationism is not science , by all means try it out in the Philosophy class. and if you want intelligent design to be held without the supernatural, put it up with methodological naturalism in there. But you will need a working idea, which "it looks designed" does not supply as, "It looks like it designed itself" carries the weight once you observe the processes. But even then if you get past that with some fancy wordplay misdirection and boatloads of asserted conjectures, it wouldn't last long. Just a few seconds until some bright spark sees through the smoke and mirrors of ID pretence to pose the question " what designs the designer ".,... then its elephants all the way down, which is only what ID can ever be. It takes a very short while to describe infinite regress. Producing yet another vehicle for it in the shape of ID/Creationism really isn't necessary.

However, as ID IS Creationism by another name, I suggest religious studies would be a more suitable place for it . Both good and bad art form sells in there.

 

[Teleologist]

Stu:

As ID/Creationism is not science, by all means try it out in Philosophy class.

Methodological naturalism is considered to be the cornerstone of modern science but MN itself is not science it is a philosophical principle. So should teachers be forbidden from discussing MN in science class?

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

Stu:


Methodological naturalism is considered to be the cornerstone of modern science but MN itself is not science it is a philosophical principle. So should teachers be forbidden to discuss MN in science class?

Yes, they should. Without proper context of discussion (ie, philosophy class where different philosophical views are compared), students will likely be confused.

What should be taught in science class, is not any of the philosophy flavors. Students should be taught the scientific method, ie, a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge, based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning. ID proponents' mistake, is pushing ID into the science class, where it doesn't belong.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

We don't want students confused, but we don't teach them the philosophy of science, explain alternative theories, show the gaping holes in theories, etc.

Nope, clearly people don't want children "confused."

More dogmatic thinking, fearful that students might get confused enough to actually begin to question and think for themselves...

Oh, and a curriculum of teaching arguments from ignorance is not really creating a foundation of "principles of reasoning."

Teaching science without teaching the philosophy of science is nothing but indoctrination.

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Yes, they should. Without proper context of discussion (ie, philosophy class where different philosophical views are compared), students will likely be confused.

What should be taught in science class, is not any of the philosophy flavors. Students should be taught the scientific method, ie, a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge, based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning. ID proponents' mistake, is pushing ID into the science class, where it doesn't belong.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

We don't want students confused, but we don't teach them the philosophy of science, explain alternative theories, show the gaping holes in theories, etc.

Nope, clearly people don't want children "confused."

More dogmatic thinking, fearful that students might get confused enough to actually begin to question and think for themselves...

Oh, and a curriculum of teaching arguments from ignorance is not really creating a foundation of "principles of reasoning."

Teaching science without teaching the philosophy of science is nothing but indoctrination.

Every time I thought you had reached the peak of stupidity, you topped that with the next post. This one is as idiotic as it gets (unless you top it again with your next post). Using your logic, you cannot teach Newton's law of gravity without teaching calculus, or teach DNA without teaching molecular biology, or teach chemistry without teaching quantum mechanics. Otherwise it's indoctrination.

You might as well remove science from schools altogether. Perhaps that's your real goal.

 

[Teleologist]

Teleologist asked:

Should teachers be forbidden to discuss MN in science class?

James Bond 3rd replied:

Yes, they should. Without proper context of discussion (ie, philosophy class where different philosophical views are compared), students will likely be confused.

What should be taught in science class, is not any of the philosophy flavors. Students should be taught the scientific method..

Well, scientists and science teachers consider MN to be the basis for the scientific method. How does that get left out of science class? It doesn't. Teachers are free to discuss MN in science class. And I might add that teachers are also free to discuss SETI. You won't see the ACLU filing any lawsuits over this. Thus, what we have here is a double standard.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

If all you can do is refer to my "stupidity" and make absurd statements claiming I want science removed from the classroom, I see no point in response.

The game you are playing with such comments, you can go ahead and win.

Not interested in that game.

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Every time I thought you had reached the peak of stupidity, you topped that with the next post. This one is as idiotic as it gets (unless you top it again with your next post). Using your logic, you cannot teach Newton's law of gravity without teaching calculus, or teach DNA without teaching molecular biology, or teach chemistry without teaching quantum mechanics. Otherwise it's indoctrination.

You might as well remove science from schools altogether. Perhaps that's your real goal.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

Well, scientists and science teachers consider MN to be the basis for the scientific method. How does that get left out of science class? It doesn't. Teachers are free to discuss MN in science class. And I might add that teachers are also free to discuss SETI. You won't see the ACLU filing any lawsuits over this. Thus, what we have here is a double standard.

Another false strawman for the crybabies. MN as a concept didn't even exist prior to 1986. I seriously doubt any high school science teacher is teaching it today.

As for SETI, itself is not science but it has been used as an example (a strawman if you like) for students to practice scientific thinking. I already pointed out in an earlier post but repeat it here. SETI was never used as an alternative to an existing scientific theory. If it had such a function then it should be booted out of science classroom just like ID.

Stop whining.

 

[Teleologist]

ZZZzzz said:

Teaching science without teaching the philosophy of science is nothing but indoctrination.

Here's an interesting quote that ties in with this nicely:

Science cannot be practiced in thin air. In fact, science itself presupposes a number of substantive philosophical theses that must be assumed if science is even going to get off the runway:

· The existence of a theory-independent, external world

· The orderly nature of the external world

· The knowability of the external world

· The existence of truth

· The laws of logic

· The reliability of our cognitive senses and sensory faculties to
serve as truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs

· The adequacy of language to describe the world

· The existence of numbers

· The uniformity of nature and induction

· The existence of values used in science

Each of these assumptions has been challenged, and the task of stating and defending these assumptions is one of the tasks of philosophy. The conclusions of science cannot be more certain than the presuppositions it rests on and uses to reach those conclusions.

A successful argument for science being the paradigm of rationality must be based on the demonstration that the presuppositions of science are preferable to other presuppositions. That demonstration requires showing that science, relying on these presuppositions, is better at solving some problems and achieving some ideals than its competitors. But showing that cannot be the task of science. It is, in fact, one task of philosophy. Thus the enterprise of justifying the presuppositions of science by showing that with their help science is the best way of solving certain problems and achieving some ideals is a necessary precondition of the justification of science. Hence philosophy, and not science, is a stronger candidate for being the very paradigm of rationality.